United States v. Rodriguez, 921 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. Apr. 24,
2019).

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting the defendant’s request for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 782, and remanded for supplemental drug quantity findings. In reversing, the court clarified that, under United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2017), drug quantities in an adopted PSR are not binding in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings without a specific and explicit drug quantity finding. The court further explained that the appropriate course of action is to engage in supplemental fact-finding to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that the defendant is responsible for a drug quantity that meets the threshold and may, in its analysis, consider the “court-adopted PSR, as well as the trial and sentencing transcripts.”

The Ninth Circuit stated that the central question is whether uncontested drug quantities in a court-adopted presentence investigation report (“PSR”) constitute specific drug quantity findings that bind district courts in subsequent 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction proceedings. We clarify that, without an explicit and specific drug quantity finding by the original sentencing judge, drug quantities in an adopted PSR are not binding in § 3582(c)(2) proceedings.

Ordinarily, a federal court “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Congress has, however, provided a narrow exception to this rule of finality. A court may modify a defendant’s term of imprisonment if the defendant was “sentenced … based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered” pursuant to a retroactive amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”). Id. The purpose of this limited exception is to provide the defendant with “the benefit of later enacted adjustments to the judgments reflected in the Sentencing Guidelines” without engaging in plenary resentencing proceedings. United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Circuit 2017)

Section 3582(c)(2) sets forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a sentence reduction. At the first step, the reviewing district court decides eligibility by determining whether a reduction is consistent with U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10, the policy statement that implements § 3582(c)(2). Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683; see also18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Section 1B1.10 permits a reduction if, but only if, the amendment has the “effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable Guideline[s] range.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B). A court determines whether the retroactive amendment lowered the defendant’s Guidelines range by calculating the “amended Guideline[s] range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the relevant amendment to the Guidelines … had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced.”  § 1B1.10(b)(1). Only the relevant amendment for the corresponding guideline provisions applied when the defendant was sentenced may be considered in the first step of the analysis, and the court must leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.  Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d at 949 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1)).

At the second step, the court must consider all applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, “the authorized reduction is warranted, either in whole or in part.” Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683; see also18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).² But the court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors may not “serve to transform the proceedings under § 3582(c)(2) into plenary resentencing proceedings.

The Guidelines use a drug quantity table, based on drug type and weight, to establish the base offense levels for drug-related offenses, with a maximum of level 38. SeeU.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). Amendment 782, adopted by the U.S. Sentencing Commission (“Commission”) in 2014, modified the drug quantity table by reducing the base offense level for most drugs and quantities by two levels. U.S.S.G. supp. app. C. amend. 782 (Nov. 1, 2014). Shortly thereafter, the Commission made Amendment 782 retroactive for defendants, like Rodriguez, who had been sentenced before the change to the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. supp. app. C amend. 788 (Nov. 1, 2014).